What if I’m willing to print other shirts for this organization? For example, I’m totally cool printing John 3:16, the name of the church or some other innocuous phrase but I don’t want to print something I see as discriminatory.
I see where you’re coming from but I harbor some concerns. If this wasn’t a protected group this wouldn’t be an issue at all. If I wanted the shirt company to print “Suck the Head and Pinch the Tail” along with the image of a scantily clad woman the company would be free to decline my business. If it was a gay group who wanted a similar message printed then it suddenly becomes discrimination. I’m afraid that being in a protected group might mean they can get whatever they want printed, period. Which isn’t the same right that the rest of us generally have.
And, please, before anyone jumps down my throat I am not happy with discrimination. I have no problem with gay people and I am pleased that they’ve made some many strides over the last two decades. I realize that discrimination is a real thing and I don’t mean to dismiss those concerns.
Not sure of the legality here, but I’m puzzled by the strategy of GLSO here. They apparently want to reward the printer who doesn’t want to support their cause by giving them business. Further, I don’t see how going with this printer is going to result in any kind of assurance of quality work – I would think that work done under duress would be shoddy at best.
(Actually, I’m not really puzzled by their strategy – they probably want to get publicity for their cause. But it would save everyone a lot of grief if they just respected the T-shirt manufacturer’s beliefs the way they want their own respected and found another vendor who was more open-minded.)
It’s also an interesting question of where you draw the line. Was the supermarket in this case justified in not printing up a cake containing nazi symbolism?
What evidence do you have of that? Such a message is obviously provocative and meant to be a double entendre. The name GLSO and the words “Pride Festival” (or even “Gay Pride Festival”) are in no way provocative or sexual in nature unless you’re an adolescent or ascetic who thinks that any mention of sexuality is prima facie dirty.
Cheesesteak doesn’t get to determine whether it is a public accommodation, the law makes this determination. Furthermore, your excerpt from the publisher hardlyl demonstrates they do not offer a service to the public.
No because copying is not speech in the factual context you provided.
I think if you can prove it’s an undue burden to find another printer for similar expense/quality than they should have to print it (If they have a regional monopoly). If you can’t prove that they should be able to stick to their preferences. They should be obligated to know who to refer you to however, since it’s their industry and making people go to court to prove the burden would itself be an undue burden imo.
Nonsense. Book publishers do NOT offer such a service. A member of the general public cannot approach a publisher and pay to have them publish a book. Rather, publishers are they ones who pay. They pay authors for the right to publish books that they believe they can sell for a profit.
Some PRINTERS do offer their services to the general public. You can pay to have them print up business cards, or make invitations, or make copies of the poems you wrote about your cat. And a printer who serves the general public in such a way cannot refuse do business with you just because you’re black or gay or Chinese. They can’t say “Oh, no … you’re a Jew! I won’t print the invitations to your daughter’s Bat Mitzvah!”
I disagree entirely. Supposing I wanted to print up Team Zeriel shirts for my bowling league team. If the company refused to print them for no other reason than the owner of the print shop happened to be bowling against me in the finals, that would be just as morally wrong. Although I’m not actually sure of the legality there.
No, it doesn’t suddenly become discrimination. If my company has a policy, that is enforced uniformly, against sexually suggestive language, that gay group has no legal leg to stand on as I am provably not discriminating against their particular message, but against a broad range of messages that is unrelated to protected class status.
I don’t see it as turn about, sure it’s a hateful message, but as mentioned up thread ISPs don’t censor ideas presented. Gay rights are a branch of human rights.
Freedom and equality for all people includes the bigots who try to destroy it. Ultimately, the demonstration of freedom makes a stronger impression than their irrational prejudices.
This whole digression is irrelevant. To prove actionable discrimination, it has to be shown that the service was refused based “on the ground of disability, race, color, religion, or national origin.”
With a book publisher in particular, their primary judgement on acceptance or refusal of service is going to be based on likely sales figures, and not on any of the protected classes. This t-shirt printer, on the other hand, has allegedly by the owner’s own admission EXPRESSLY denied service based on solely discriminatory grounds.
Therefore, a book publisher is only going to be compelled to produce speech they don’t agree with in the very limited case wherein it can be proven that the publisher rejected a book THEY WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE PUBLISHED based on discriminatory grounds.
Similarly, this t-shirt company could not be compelled to print these shirts if they can prove they rejected the design for reasons other than discriminating against a protected class. Given how innocuous the message is, if the printing company has produced ANY other t-shirt solely giving the non-obscene name of an organization’s event I think they’re up the creek, legally.
No it isn’t. Publishers do not offer the service of publishing to the general public. They solicit works that they want to publish from recognized agents. Offering a service to general public means that anyone can walk off the street and avail themselves of the service. That’s definitely not what publishers do.
If book publishers offer services to the general public, then so do private clubs.
As for the case, the main problem I have is that they already agreed to do it. Otherwise I wouldn’t care. I don’t see refusing to make t-shirts for a pride rally to be the same thing as refusing to make shirts for gay people. Discrimination is about who you are, not the cause you represent.
So, what year did you graduate from law school? And I’m sure you can find us a case where a publisher was successfully sued as a public accommodation.
Otherwise, this is just your opinion.
I finished law school in 05. In regards to this Kentucky statute, the case law interpreting the statute is between thin to non-existent. I know because I have already looked.
There’s a difference between publishers and printers. Although both can discriminate, publishers are more likely to narrow their decisions, as such a decision could seriously affect their downstream profit. What they publish may sell for a long time, or lose money right off the bat. There’s a high risk involved.
In contrast, a printer doesn’t care what the job is, as long as he gets paid. He may have a personal objection to a job, but isn’t concerned about future profits from sales of that particular job, because there aren’t any. There’s little risk involved.
I wanted to qualify my answer of, “In regards to this Kentucky statute, the case law interpreting the statute is between thin to non-existent. I know because I have already looked.” I typed the language in from the statute and retrieved only 4 cases none of which provided any illumination as to the meaning of the phrase presently being discussed.
I have not yet tried a different search using the same language and some added other language.
Regardless, however, this digression, while edifying, does not detract from the essential point I have made of A.) Hands On Originals is speaking when they create speech by creating it on a t-shirt for a customer and B.) They have a 1st Amendment right not to speak.